| Dear Mr. Abaya, I am sending below a counter reply to your reply to my comments on your article about Angelo's Cross. I have been out of town the past weeks, so I am sending this only now. The ones appearing in parenthesis are your replies. (MY REPLY. There is no "invisible hand", only a growing number of people realizing that runaway population growth will negate modest economic growth. Would Angelo de la Cruz have been trying is luck in Iraq if he had only two or three children, instead of eight?) My reply to your reply: Would Angelo de la Cruz have been trying his luck in Iraq if he had good chances of finding better work in our country? Many of our OFWs decide to work abroad because they can't find good jobs in our country. And they can't find jobs here not because there are too many people compared to the number of jobs available (which is a fallacy), but due to political instability. If only our leaders work towards creating a good environment for job opportunities for our people. Remember the cry of some Filipino workers who could not leave for Iraq after the ban was proclaimed during Angelo's captivity? "WE WOULD RATHER DIE IN IRAQ THAN DIE IN OUR COUNTRY OF HUNGER!" They prefer to risk it in Iraq where there is work, rather than not have any means to earn a living in their own country. In relation to the first part of your reply, it's not that people are realizing that runaway population growth will negate modest economic growth. What is actually happening is that the public is being made to believe that such is taking place through the aggressive media campaign on population control. Common sense dictates that the problem that needs to be solved is poverty. And promoting an aggressive birth control program is not the solution to poverty. Do you think that a poor woman who has undergone sterilization would find food on her table when she goes home? Sure, the big number of children would make her situation very difficult. But give her a better job, and she'll be a lot better off the next day and for the rest of her life. The overriding problem here is poverty. If only they were not poor. If only they could find work to support their children. If only the government pours in public funds to provide more jobs. In some newspaper, headlines like "THERE ARE NOW (so many) MILLIONS OF BABIES IN THE PHILIPPINES!" come out. So what? Mind you, most of these babies are born in a family where parents are able to take care of them. They are not mere numbers! They belong to a family. What should be done, therefore, is to empower the families through human development programs by the government. (MY REPLY. No one is claiming any right to dictate the number of children a family should have. On the other hand, no one should also dictate that families should hear only the Catholic-approved method of family planning, the rhythm method. Let information on all methods (except abortion) - pills, ligation, IUD, spermicide - be made available to all, and let each couple decide freely which they prefer.) My reply to your reply: On the contrary, much information has already been disseminated about the artificial means of birth control. I had taken them up in my high school health class in the 70's - imagine, even high schoolers are already taught these methods - that was already over two decades ago! I think that is one reason why the Catholic church is doing a lot of campaign on the natural family planning methods to inform the Filipinos, especially those belonging to their flock - the Catholic faithful - of a better way to plan their family that befits the dignity of the human person, as it involves the use of one's rational powers of intellect and will, and self-control, which only human beings are capable of. (MY REPLY. Name one country - outside of Saudi Arabia, which has huge oil deposits - that achieved economic progress in the 20th/21st century with a population growth rate like the Philippines'.) My reply to your reply: I'll get back to you on this after I have gathered the accurate data. But please, don't make Saudi Arabia an exception. Precisely because of its rich natural oil resource and proper governance, it has become a very progressive country. It should be a model for others. The Philippines is also very rich in natural resources, but it lacks proper governance - corruption is too deeply ingrained, thus we are not able to progress. But we will, if we develop our natural resources, most especially the human resource through good governance on the part of our leaders. Please consider, too, that there are also countries, especially in Africa, which have low birth rates but have not managed to progress due to political instability and poor governance - like Ethiopia and Sudan. So it's clear that there is no direct relation between birth rate and progress. Other factors determine progress in a country --governance, culture, etc. If we develop our people, we will progress. And do you know that human development naturally leads to a decrease in fertility, if your concern really is to reduce the birth rate in our country? Give our people, especially the women, more opportunities for education, more opportunities for work, in short, more opportunities for a better life, and they will have other options to take in life other than child bearing. Take a simple example: a poor girl of 15 years who has no other option than to be married at that age will bear many children. But give her a better chance at education and she will put marriage aside. Surely she will decide to work after studies and may get married at a much later age, thus reducing the possible number of births she is capable of. Multiply that to the millions of women of child-bearing age. The same holds true when men are given job opportunities: they will have better things to do than just stay at home. Besides, those countries that have very low birth rates due to a "successful" birth control program are realizing that they have committed a national "suicide". Singapore will soon suffer a wipe out of its ethnic Chinese population. Lee Kuan Yu successfully implemented the two-child policy only in the 1970's and now they are suffering its consequences. The negative growth rate in Japan is irreversible. It's only a matter of time before these countries will suffer a crumbling down of their social structure, or a replacement of their race. Just watch the Olympics and you will notice that several athletes from France are blacks - and good athletes at that. Let's learn from these sad lessons and not let it happen to our country. You tamper with nature, and nature will hit back at you --- mercilessly! Tilda Pedaria, mtopedaia@edsamail August 23, 2004 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |
 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Angelo�s Cross By Antonio C. Abaya July 22, Manila Standard We rejoice over the freeing of Angelo de la Cruz by his Iraqi Islamist hostage-takers, and we congratulate President Arroyo for making the right decision in risking the ire of the Americans in exchange for the freedom of Angelo. We realize, however, that the motivation behind the President�s decision may not have been entirely altruistic and humanitarian, that she was also forced into that decision by her instincts for political survival. Certainly, if President Arroyo had adamantly refused to negotiate with the hostage-takers, as she had been counseled by the Americans, the Australians and the Japanese, as well as by some Filipinos to whom maintaining our suck-up relations with the Americans was more important than saving one Filipino life, Angelo would most likely have been beheaded by now. The Islamist militants did not hesitate to behead the Americans Nicholas Berg and Paul Johnson and the Korean Kim Sun Il when their demands were not met. There is no reason to believe that they would have hesitated to behead Angelo if President Arroyo had chosen to assume a hard-line position to �honor our commitment� to the US. That putative beheading would have unleashed such a firestorm as to consume the Arroyo Malacanang and its occupants. It would have enraged public opinion to a degree beyond that generated by the hanging of Flor Contemplacion by Singapore authorities seven or eight years ago, during the presidency of Fidel Ramos. Ramos was forced to fire then Labor Secretary Nieves Confesor and then Foreign Affairs Secretary Roberto Romulo as scapegoats for his government�s failure to stop the execution. But at least Contemplacion had been accused of a crime (the murder of a fellow OFW), was tried by a competent court and was found guilty. Neither Confesor nor Romulo could have done anything to have her acquitted, and President Ramos was not in any position to choose whether she should live or die. In the case of Angelo, he has not been accused, tried or convicted of any crime. He just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time when he was kidnapped. Public opinion would not have accepted his execution. He would have been a totally innocent victim, a sacrificial lamb on the altar of geopolitics. If President Arroyo had chosen to let him be beheaded, she would have signed her own political death warrant. Angelo de la Cruz � Angel of the Cross � has become the Filipino Everyman, and what a Cross he bears. It is a Cross that is the inevitable product of poor leadership through decades of misrule by the country�s political leaders, a Cross to which Everyman is nailed with the twin spikes of endemic corruption and social injustice. On the one hand, Angelo the Everyman is forced to work abroad because the domestic economy cannot generate enough jobs for him and millions like him. On the other, Angelo the Everyman must run faster just to stay in place because he has more children than he can comfortably afford to feed, house, clothe and educate. The dual nature of Angelo�s Cross points to the failure of government and the country�s political leaders, including, but not limited to, the present incumbents. Failure to stimulate the economy to generate investments and thus jobs for the millions who want and need to work. And failure to educate the broad mass on the options available to them to limit the size of their families so that their slices of the economic pie grow ever bigger instead of shrinking ever smaller with each additional mouth to feed. And Angelo�s Cross threatens to become a permanent fixture in this nation�s Calvary. President Arroyo�s 10-Point Legacy that she wants to leave behind when her term ends in 2010. does not give much hope that this country�s formal economy will ever reach take-off stage, as it has in South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. What that Legacy is focusing on, it seems to me, is how to shore up the underground economy, the formal economy being a lost cause, given her ideological commitment to free trade and globalization and her deliberate write-off of broad-based manufacturing as generator of jobs and economic growth. No wonder GMA has enlisted as economic adviser the Peruvian social scientist Hernando de Soto, probably the world�s leading expert on the underground economy. The Arroyo Government is said to be focusing on developing one million hectares of agricultural land to generate one million jobs, the first of the ten million she has set for her 10-Point Legacy. This ignores the common sense notion that one hectare of agricultural land, planted to rice or corn, cannot sustain even one family for one year; that same hectare of agricultural land, when converted into a manufacturing zone, can sustain several hundred families. But under the rubric of free trade and globalization, the Philippines has apparently been crossed out (by its own leaders, no less) as a manufacturing country and must fend for itself as an exporter of labor. Angelo de la Cruz is a poster boy of this New Economy. The 10-Point Legacy also says nothing about curbing our runaway population growth, revealing GMA�s inordinate fear of the power of the Catholic bishops. That means the Angelo de la Cruzes will proliferate even more by 2010 when, at current growth rate of 2.36% p.a., today�s 84 million Filipinos will become 100 million. Making crosses may become a sunrise industry then. ***** My articles appear every Thursday in the Manila Standard and every Saturday in the Philippines Free Press magazine. All articles are archived in www.tapatt.org. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Angelo�s Cross� Dear Mr. Abaya : Just thought I would pass on to u my email to a close friend, Archie Lacson - in regard to ur article below : More power to u, sir. Tony Elica�o [email protected] July 22, 2004 ----- Original Message ----- From: Antonio B. Elicano To: White, Celia ; [email protected] ; Suzara, Conrado F. ; Santos, Rebecca Verzosa ; Ramy Lopez ; Lacson, Archie P. ; Hilado, Robert L. ; Fernandez, Mildred Bagwan ; Cornelio, Gany ; Belen, Benjamin P. ; Farol, Romeo F. C. Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 7:38 PM Subject: Fw: Angelo's Cross Archie : here are exactly our thoughts and sentiments altho infinitely more masterfully termed than our plebian style. I love Abaya's "the motivation behind the President's decision may not have been entirely altruistic and humanitarian...." followed by "... her instincts for political survival.", and the nail on the coffin ".... putative beheading would have unleashed such a firestorm as to consume the Arroyo Malacanang and its occupants....." I wonder if GMA and her gang realize na "bistado na sila ng mga Pilipino"? Tony E. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I AGREE WITH EVERY POINT YOU RAISED IN YOUR ARTICLE, MORE SO WITH OUR UNABATED POPULATION GROWTH. I HAVE ALWAYS EQUATED ECONOMIC PROGRESS WITH POPULATION GROWTH. THE PHILIPPINES MUST NOW BE THE WORLD'S MODEL OF HOW NOT TO GROW ECONOMICALLY BECAUSE OF A RUN-AWAY POPULATION EXPLOSION, TO SAY THE LEAST. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE PRESIDENT'S HESITANCE TO PUT THIS ISSUE AS ONE OF HER CENTERPIECES IN HER 10-POINT AGENDA. MISMANAGEMENT OF OUR POPULATION GROWTH WILL ONLY EAT UP WHATEVER ECONOMIC PROGRESS WE MAY ATTAIN IN THE NEAR AND FAR FUTURE. AND I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY SHE FEARS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OTHER MORALISTS WHEN WHAT SHE SHOULD BE DOING IS ADOPTING ALL THE LEGAL MEANS TO SUBDUE THIS PROBLEM HEAD ON, AND NOT SKIRT IT AS SHE IS NOW DOING NOW. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, MS MACAPAGAL CANNOT AFFORD TO BE ALWAYS AT THE BECK AND CALL OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. IT IS TIME SHE BECAME MORE PRESIDENTIAL TO HER COUNTRY. THE WAY I SEE IT, HER BEING A GOOD CHRISTIAN WILL NOT BE DIMINISHED IF SHE PUTS POLITICAL WILL ON THE ISSUE OF CURBING OUR POPULATION GROWTH. Ed Valenciano [email protected] July 22, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Forwarded) . Kit, Here's a heads up, from Tony Abaya, of <http://www.tapatt.org> on exactly the subject we are discussing here in our archersnook newsgroup. I have taken both sides of the fence - for and against Tony Abaya on many different issues. This time, I am (again) in all the way, like flint, with and for Tony's position on the "withdrawal of GMA." (with a few minor - albeit, trivial - exceptions). Here are the capital points that I underscore and applaud about Tony's analyses: 1. He observed accurately that GMA risked inviting the ire of the Americans. And here, I note with special interest the careful and emphatic use of the term "Americans". Tony did not say GWB administration. Very astute observation. 2. Tony zeroed in on GMA's "suspect" ulterior motives. Simply put, "political survival." I agree with the suspicion, 100%, based on previous "actuations-conditioned-responses" by GMA. And let me add, this very motivation might very well cause her eventual downfall (i.e., read possible removal from office before her term is up). 3. I am not prepared to accept 100% Tony's "economic twist" - or preference for "manufacturing and industrialization versus agricultural development". But it's an approach that suggests the utilization of "professional managers", a refreshing departure from the age-old approach to breaking down first the monolithic stranglehold and resistance to"agrarian reforms", by the landed oligarchs. Without tremendous capital investments from abroad, how can any form of agragrian reform flourish? And now that GMA's withdrawal has caused some nervousness in the international investing community, it would seem that Tony's approach of increasing productivity through self or internal-financed industrialization would be the more practical approach to "waking and stirring up the economy." Summation: Let me make a "Poorest Gump" - Stupid is, Stupid does - prediction. GMA is caught in the classic Catch 22 - "Dumb if I do, Dumber, if I don't". For reasons already articulated by Tony...GMA really or virtually had no uncontroversial, middle-of-the-road-choice. (a.) A refusal to kowtow to blackmail from the terrorists would have, almost surely, risked, decapitation for Angelo. Simultaneously, it would have given the GMA political, media and civil societky oppositionist groups, exactly what they needed to rally their constituents to an all out "carnival and festival of rallies, demonstrations, riots and civil commotions, that had all the potential of breaking out and escalating into an all-out anarchy in the streets. (b.) Giving in to the blackmail of terrorists, while guaranteeing the safe release and return of Angelo de la Cruz, sends the signal to the terrorists that they "blackmail does pay." At the same time, it tells the GMA opposition, "Hey, she blinked. Let's go hit the streets, gangs. Happy days are here again." In short, her decision which is motivated by the desire to strengthen her political position is going south, instead. (c) Withdrawing from Iraq, if in fact this was GMA's own decision - (not approved or endorsed by the USA), then GMA had succeeded in severing or souring the ties that she had with her greatest ally and "power to retain" supporter. This means, she is now, "fair game", and without the special protection of the USA. Remember 1989, when Cory Aquino's administration was almost toppled down, had it not been for the timely positive intervention by the US-air force. This is election year in the USA and regardless of who wins in November 2004, there will be drastic changes in the "bilateral agreements" between the States and the Philippines. This is a given. (d) Media will continue unrelentless in their criticisms and tirades against GMA. The next series of attacks will obviously focus on her 10-point program. Whatever she proposes will be shot down by media who will read some "ulterior motives behind these." My conclusion: she was really better off, playing hardboal against the terrorists, and refusing to kowtow to their blackmail. Know your friends, and keep them close. As for your enemies, ah, keep them closer..." Pepeton J�anton [email protected] July 23, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, I have been receiving articles from you in my e-mail and I wish to thank you for it. I am now writing you back because the current article contains something that really concerns me greatly: that of population control. There seems to be an invisible hand trying to make people think that our country's present birth rate is an evil that has to be curbed. I have been reading much about it in the newspapers these days. And the Catholic Church is always being blamed for the failure of attempts to institutionalize a population control program in our country. I really think that the evil is not our big population, but rather poverty which is a consequence of poor governance, corruption, etc. (MY REPLY. There is no �invisible hand�, only a growing number of people realizing that runaway population growth will negate modest economic growth. Would Angelo de la Cruz have been trying is luck in Iraq if he had only two or three children, instead of eight?) We Filipinos are family oriented and children are a source of joy in each home. Besides, the choice of the number of children really belongs primarily to the spouses, so I think no one has any right to dictate how many children they should have. Poor people with many children are often viewed as irresponsible -- this is how articles in newspapers or ads on population control project them to be. But perhaps it is time for us to think in another way: the government should do something so that spouses who want to have a big family can do so with all freedom and peace of mind. Why make them think that it's best for them to limit their children to 1 or 2, if they want to have more? (MY REPLY. No one is claiming any right to dictate the number of children a family should have. On the other hand, no one should also dictate that families should hear only the Catholic-approved method of family planning, the rhythm method. Let information on all methods (except abortion) � pills, ligation, IUD, spermicide � be made available to all, and let each couple decide freely which they prefer.) When possibilities to earn a decent living are limited, it doesn't really matter if a couple has 1, 2, 3, 8 or even no children. If they have no possibility to rise up economically due to poor governance in our country, then they will remain poor and miserable. The real problem is poverty: the government has to solve that first and they have to study that well, which means our legislators really have to work very, very hard instead of just squabbling and throwing mud at each other: our nation needs them to work hard by using their heads more than their mouths. Once they strengthen the political and economic structure of our country, with our powerful workforce, thanks to our big population, I think we can progress. We have enough proof of this in other countries where our own Filipino overseas workers are helping these foreign governments to lead their countries, in part through the hard work of our own Filipino people. I hope you don't mind my saying this, Mr. Abaya, that maybe you can do some more research about the population issue, like the long term negative effects of controlling birth rates in a country ( we have so many things to learn from the negative experience of those countries). I have seen a feature program in BBC where European leaders were trying to address the declining birth rate in many countries of Europe. I am sure you will find abundant material on that. You just have to discover where you will find them. Don't allow yourself to simply be fed with information from those who are biased against our country's population. For all you know, it's really our national strength, and some sectors (foreign sectors maybe) view it as a possible threat to their own world status. (MY REPLY. Name one country � outside of Saudi Arabia, which has huge oil deposits � that achieved economic progress in the 20th/21st century with a population growth rate like the Philippines�.) [email protected] July 23, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww What ever happened to the many juan dela cruz's who were killed in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and else where? THEY are the real heroes...who died for our economic sins. [email protected] July 23, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I agree with your last paragraph. Now to the capitulation to terrorists. It appears that Filipino diplomacy is totally bankrupt, I have not heard anything sensible uttered by these bureaucrats most of whom get their jobs by kissing the ass of the likes of Joe de Venecia. The Philippines did not even temporaize, explore other possibilities including paying ransom. The latter is deniable while capitulation is for all the world to see. I'd rather not be a Filipino. Better, let us have this country re-colonized so we don't have to send diplomats abroad who are a drain on the treasury. Ross Tipon [email protected] July 23, 2004 MY REPLY. But which imperial power would be so stupid as to re-colonize 84 million quarrelsome Filipinos? wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Forwarded) From: Larry Cruz <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Fil, AA to me is one of today's most thoughtful columnists. This one is one of the best commentaries on Angel of the Cross... I think, too, that we should stop the over adulation of the man. After all he didn't say anything courageous or profound (how could he?), but was just a lucky man swept by events. He is Mr. Everyman all right, but hardly a hero. He has been a victim not only of the Islamic captors but of the Philippine system, corrupt officials, and the bishops and their blind followers who still live in the dark ages. Angelo deserves a break, even a life of comfort after this, for he is the unwitting symbol of the nation's suffering and the best argument for rethinking our grovelling admiration of America. But let's not make him a hero. Eight mouths to feed....the bishops should all take care of his children Larry Cruz [email protected] July 23, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Dear Mr. Abaya, I read your article in the Manila Standard dated July 22 and we fully agree with what you said. In fact, we have also been saying the same thing but you said it a lot better. A couple of things: 1) Can we reprint this article or column? 2) We are a weekly newspaper and we come out every Monday. At the moment our circulation is only in Cagayan de Oro but, we are proud to say that we are the most read paper in the city today and, on Mondays, more people read us than the 3 local dailies. If you want to send us an article for printing, please feel free. We cannot, however, offer you any remuneration at the moment. We are only 6 months old and still struggling financially. Thank you. Ed Montalvan Publisher/Editor The MINDANAO CURRENT [email protected] July 26, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww |